Sam wrote: > Thomas > > I am not sure that we need to do such a major rework. These samples are time > ordered but have no sensible time. So they could appear in the history list > without an offset, labelled in what ever way was helpful, recognising they > are part of the same measurement. On thinking about this (if you wanted to > keep all the measurements) a simple office based measurement like peak flow > is a candidate - you might do three measurements in a row. > > At the moment the history demands an offset - the set of measurements would > still be timed - but only the sequence of each would be known, not the time > of each individual. This seems more appropriate.
But I think the whole idea of History is about time. Having a sequence type would not be much work. The abstraction seems quite simple, but we need to do more analysis... > > The query could return them all at the same time or, as I have suggested, > with a nominal offset 1,2,3 etc > > This would allow for the fuzziness of a series to be captured. > > Another alternative is just to allow the application to put in what ever > time it likes as the offset, and label them Sample 1, Sample 2. This would > require no changes, and would not upset the query model. I probably favour > this approach as there is no doubt there is a time element to sampling, > otherwise it is not a sequence. but maybe even though sequential samples were done at different times, time is not the variable of the sequence - it could be position (in a limb being scanned for example) or separate tissue samples as you mention below. Then the fact that the results were generated (slightly?) separated in time is irrelevant - in fact the proper ordering of the series might be different from the time-ordering of the result generation...also, imaging equipment might generate sequences of results in a spatial dimension at the same moment. I think we have to analyse this further.... Any other sequence examples anyone? - thomas - If you have any questions about using this list, please send a message to d.lloyd at openehr.org
